A recent article on the growing popularity of Morgan State University suggested that the recent buildup of Morgan was due to pressures from students and civil rights advocates.
It is true that civil rights groups have long called for the development of Morgan, but those calls went unheeded.
The change came as Gov. William Donald Schaefer, with the support of key black and white legislators, persuaded the General Assembly to support the very aggressive campus renovation and expansion program set forth by the campus administration and Board of Regents.
The student protest in 1990 did raise public awareness of conditions on the campus. However, the commitment to improvements in the physical plant (including dormitories) had already been made.
In fact, the actions of the students threatened to undo some of the agreements previously made to the university.
Certainly, Governor Schaefer and I have had our disagreements over the years. But, let us give credit where it is due.
Enolia V. McMillan
The writer is a former member of the Morgan State University Board of Regents.
The Sun (March 3) contained an article highlighting an unadvertised impact of proposed new tax plans: the "marriage penalty" will increase.
The marriage penalty is the extra tax which two working persons pay if they are married to each other, compared to simply living together. This year, as in years past, my wife and I will pay nearly $1,000 extra in taxes, as a penalty for being married.
The ideological basis of the marriage tax is the ancient common law notion that in marriage "the two have become one" and that there is now one taxpayer rather than two. The implicit assumption is that a married couple will only have one job; the tax code rewards married couples with one job and penalizes those with two.
This assumption no longer equates with reality. A majority of American married couples are two-income couples. Adding insult injury, because of the way the tax code is written, the marriage penalty is lowest where incomes are very unequal, and reaches its highest point where the two incomes are equal.
Clearly, the framers of the present tax code, in its provisions affecting rewards and penalties for marriage for second incomes, felt that women were best kept barefoot and pregnant, and should be taxed least when they conformed to this role.
The marriage penalty is unnecessary. Maryland's state income tax has been quite able to tax married couples equitably with those who are unmarried. If Maryland can do it, the federal government can, as well.
Furthermore, rectifying the situation need not be costly. As we look for ways to finance needed investment and reduce the growth of the national debt, we do not need to reduce the taxes of married couples.
I do not begrudge America the extra $1,000. Instead, raise the taxes of unmarried people proportionately so they pay the same $1,000. That would achieve fairness, terminate the appearance that the federal government is anti-family, anti-marriage, or anti-woman, and tap an appropriate source of much needed funds.
Jackson H. Day
As I was leafing through the March 13 edition of The Sun, a headline caught my eye -- "Kids try to go without TV." I was thrilled!
As a pediatric occupational therapist for Baltimore City, I have developed the belief that children need many hands-on opportunities to interact with their environment. Excessive television viewing promotes lethargy and stifles creativity.
My daughters can attest to the fact that young children can always find creative and inexpensive ways to play without using TV. However, I was sickened to discover that the accompanying photograph for this article depicted a 5-year-old boy shooting what appeared to be a toy version of a high-powered rapid-fire rifle. Couldn't you have found a picture of children using their time a little more productively?
Nancy Papa Doran
I have had a great respect for Jeane Kirkpatrick as a political scientist, but the piece in The Sun (Feb. 22) trying to compare Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic to Saddam Hussein leaves me aghast.
This is simply devoid of logic. Hussein conquered a foreign country, Kuwait, while Milosevic never moved outside the boundaries of the Yugoslav state, of which Serbia was a part. Milosevic's actions have been those of a participant in a tragic civil war.
If we are to label Serbia as an aggressor, then we should call our Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression," which is what Confederate newspapers called it.
Alex N. Dragnich
Pro-lifers Do Not Condone Terrorism
Although I live in the state with the most liberal abortion laws, I am anti-abortion, or pro-life. I am also a Christian.
I am aware that these two stands are even more unpopular in light of both David Koresh in Waco, Texas, and even more, after the tragic killing of Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, Fla.
It is a mistake to think these radical minorities are spokespeople for the majority. I am against taking human life.
I think it is abhorrent to abort unborn babies, and in our country presently, babies are in need of protection in their mothers' wombs. We should indeed grieve for the millions of babies who have been killed through abortion.
However, I am also outraged at the murder committed by Michael Griffin on March 10. There is nothing that excuses this act, or makes it tolerable. I am ashamed that the anti-abortion group, Rescue America, has not denounced this act more forcefully, but instead is reportedly providing financial assistance for Mr. Griffin's family.
All Americans, whether pro-choice, pro-life, or whatever, ought to denounce this murder. I have not been able to get this tragedy out of my mind since I heard the news. I am grieved that this act could reflect on me in any way, since I am associated by way of being both against abortion and a Christian.
The news is filled with references to "anti-abortion terrorism." I do not disagree that there may be a segment of anti-abortionists who deserve this label, just as terrorism exists elsewhere in our society.
But all anti-abortionists are not terrorists, but are people with strong convictions called to speak out about a practice that we feel is seriously wrong and should not be allowed.
Michael Griffin is not speaking for me, nor do I believe he is the voice of many others who are also against abortion.
I am also certain that Michael Griffin is not the voice of God. Everything about this act is in contradiction to the teachings of the New Testament of the Bible, which condemn murder, call on us to love our enemies, exhort us to forgive.
It is Jesus who prevented an adulteress from being stoned when He said to her accusers, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
It seems from your editorial March 12 that you are only too delighted to make Michael Frederick Griffin the Willie Horton of pro-abortion bigotry.
In fact, your editorial makes me think of the ravings of some empty-headed Klansman only too delighted to point out the aberrant behavior of individuals to caricature whole groups of people whom he hates.
The pro-life movement is made up of people opposed to violence and who see the need for laws to be changed so that human life will be respected for its intrinsic, unlimited value. Such people as we do not deserve your bigoted ravings about terrorism -- as you well know.
The murder of David Gunn was a very unfortunate incident. The man who murdered him should be locked up in jail for many years.
I am 100 percent pro-life, and I am appalled at what happened. PTC Please do not think that all pro-lifers are as violent as Michael Griffin.
We believe that all life is sacred, and therefore that included Dr. Gunn's life as well. We are not all terrorists.
Abortion is the most divisive issue to hit the country since slavery, and the only way that this issue is ever going to be solved in through compromise on both sides, and not violence.
Mary M. Shaffrey